A few posts ago I blogged the story of a liberal group who was outraged at the "dominance" of conservatives on talk radio. They proposed using government policy to change this dominance by (among other things) fining stations that did not have enough liberals or had too many conservatives.

At the time I tried to explain to any liberal reading what this meant...

"In other words, Censorship. - Contrary to what the "progressives" claim, private citizens smashing Dixie Chicks CDs is not censorship. Having the government regulate political speech is.

It would seem simple... But of course not to our resident house troll Lee Ward who stepped in several times to -well- be a troll. But this time was different. He so annoyed me that I decided go to google and see what Lee had said in the past about censorship and the Dixie Chicks. It took exactly 2 hits for the quotes to start rolling in:

# Choosing to apply economic pressure against your fellow Americans who dare speak up against Bush is a despicable attempt at censorship. Note again the word "attempt" - it always backfires

So according to Lee, people not buying Dixie Chicks CDs is not only censorship, it's despicable. Having the government control the content of talk radio however, is not censorship. mantis tried to explain that "Censorship is something governments do, not consumers."

Censorship is the removal of information from the public, or the prevention of circulation of information, where it is desired or felt best by some controlling group or body that others are not allowed to access the information which is being censored. Typically censorship is undertaken by governments, or by established bodies (religions or the mass media), although self-censorship and other forms also exist. Censorship of some forms of sensitive information, such as commercial secrets and intellectual property, official secrets, and legal privilege, are not usually described as censorship, provided that they remain within bounds which are recognised in general as being reasonable. For this reason, the term "censorship" often carries with it a sense of untoward, inappropriate or repressive secrecy as opposed to a reasonable and expected level.

Censorship is closely tied in as a concept with freedom of speech and other forms of human expression, and when tightly exerted is often allied with human rights abuse, dictatorship and repression.

If you hold a loaded gun to my head, mantis, and make it very clear that you object to me speaking out against Bush, are you attempting to censor my free speech? ...

The economic boycott launched by the right is exactly the same form of censorship.

Not buying Dixie Chic's CDs is the same as putting a gun to someone's head. Ok... He continues but this time he whips out the bold tag.

#Their livelihood and careers as recording artists were both threatened by the right as a result fo their free speech, so yes... it was an attempt at censorship, yes.

Then it got funny...

An economic boycott applied against someone who is exercising their right to free speech, and in an attempt to do them some harm if they continue saying those things, to is a form of censorship

At this point I had a thought... Don't liberals boycott talk radio? By Lee's logic (don't try using Lee logic at home, it will hurt your brain, I'm a trained professional) if liberals don't listen to conservative talk radio isn't that censorship?

He continues to prattle on, you can go read it if you have the stomach, but I'll give you just one more because he attempts to distill his point and I think that's of value..

...what I said was that an organized economic boycott aimed at threatening the Dixie Chicks livelihood launched specifically in response to a political view the Dixie Chicks expressed is an attempt at censorship.

So there you have it. If a bunch of private citizens all announce they are not going to give the Dixie Chicks money, that is considered censorship. Having the government decide who gets to be on talk radio based on their political belief isn't.

Sorry Lee, you can't have it both ways.

Jay Tea adds: Lee also didn't think it was such a big deal when several leading Democratic congressmen threatened to pull ABC's broadcast licenses for the TV stations it owns over their airing of "The Path To 9/11."

My Answer to Paul's claim that progressives are calling for "censorship" of conservative radio below - -as crossposted from the original here.
-----------------

1) What was the article about?
Decreasing the domination of conservative talk radio.

2) What did they want accomplished?
Increased diversity of radio ownership.

3) How did they want to do it?
Ordering the army to march into radio stations and threatening the radio station manager with jail if they didn't take Rush Limbaugh off the air.

Oh wait, that's the wingnut version of #3. Here's what the article says:

Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest."

"Along with other ideas, the report recommends that national radio ownership not be allowed to exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations, and local ownership should not exceed more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market."

Now, nowhere does that say that the government would dictate what goes on the radio, nor does it suggest that government would tell radio station owners that they have to take Rush Limpbaugh off the air.

Paul's statement that progressives are calling for government censorship of conservative talk radio is false.

Yes, they are calling for more diversity in ownership and, they presume, more women and minority owners of radio stations will result in an increase in progressive radio carriage and a commensurate (sorry to use the big words here guys) decrease in hate-talk conservative radio domination as a result.

No one is talking about reducing the number of radio stations that carry Rush Limpbaugh. If, as in Paul's worst nightmare, there are fewer fat, sweaty white men owning radio stations that might mean that a radio station which used to air be owned by a conservative would be sold - somehow -- to a black woman, and now a black woman owns the radio station -- lets call that radio station "WXYZ-AM" in "Anytown, USA."

First off, no one is telling the black woman what to air - she can air whatever she wants. The government is not telling her she cannot air Limpbaugh on WXYZ - so Paul's "censorship" claim is still false.

But let's assume that she decides to take Limpbaugh off the air and put the Wizbang Blue radio hour on instead. That still isn't government censorship, but the result is what Paul fears, and Limpbaugh is no longer aired on WXYZ.

IN an instant, if not sooner, another radio station in "Anytown" is going to snap up Limbaugh's radio show that was airing on WXYZ and air it on their station.

Conservative talk radio is hugely profitable, and even if radio ownership diversity was accomplished, more minorities and women owned radio stations, and those new owners choose to air progressive instead of conservative talk radio, the net result would be an increase in progressive talk shows, while the number of conservative radio stations airing Limpbaugh's shows would not decrease.

In "Anytown" Limpbaugh might air on WABC instead of WXYZ, but it would still air - and there is still no government censorship.

BUT the stated goal of a reduction in conservative talk show domination might occur as a result, and that's why the conservatives on Wizbang and elsewhere in the conservative blogosphere are willing to stoop as low as you see above in order to try to convince Americans that those damned progressives are calling for the "censorship" of conservative radio.

Increased ownership diversity would result in potentially an increase in progressive radio show carriage, but the profitable economics of conservative talk radio means that in no markets whatsoever would conservative radio be taken off the air - at worst it might move to a different station.

The concept that Limpbaugh would no longer air in Anytown USA as a result of the stated policy is bullshit.

And if you'd like to try again to show how the proposed policy that you call an attempt at "government censorship" really is exactly what you claim it to be -- feel free, Paul. My answer to your three questions appears above, and it's a brand new thread, fire away.

And I'll admit that my choice of the word "censorship" with regards to the Dixie Chicks boycott was a poor choice of words. I should have said an attempt to "silence" the Dixie Chicks instead of "censor" them. An economic boycott is a way to attempt to "censor" someone figuratively, but you don't have the education or experience to understand that concept, so "my bad".

So they aren't calling for censorship, they're just calling for something that looks exactly like censorship, and will have results that are indistinguishable from censorship, but isn't really censorship because you don't want it to be called that?

=====================Require commercial owners
who fail to abide by enforceable
public interest obligations
to pay a fee to support public
broadcasting
If commercial radio broadcasters are
unwilling to abide by these regulatory
standards or the FCC is unable to effectively
regulate in the public interest,
a spectrum use fee should be levied on
owners to directly support local, regional,
and national public broadcasting.
A fee based on a sliding scale (1 percent
for small markets, 5 percent for the largest
markets) would be distributed directly
to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
with clear mandates to support local
news and public affairs programming
and to cover controversial and political
issues in a fair and balanced manner.
We estimate that such a fee would net
between $100 million and $250 million
and would not overly burden commercial
radio broadcasters.
=====================

1) The progressive are trying to get more liberals and less conservatives on the radio.

False. They are trying to get more progressives on the radio through more diversity in radio station ownership. The number of conservatives on the radio would not change one bit, as I've explained above.

My reading of the proposal says that the government is not involved in telling any radio station owners - anywhere in this proposal -- what they can or cannot air.

You've yet to prove your claim that they have, despite hours and hours to do so.

2) They want to use the government to do that.

False, They do not want to use the government to reduce the number of conservative radio shows, or at least - you've yet to show where they have. I keep waiting and hoping you will at least try, instead of name-calling and changing the subject instead.

The progressives you cited are proposing making changes which would increase minority and women ownership of radio - which they assume will mean more progressives on the radio -- but due to the enormous profitability of conservative radio there will be no reduction in conservative talk show programming -- the radio shows if they move will just move to another station in the same town and you haven't shown anywhere in the proposal where there is is a call for government censorship of conservative talk shows.

Changing this into a personal attack on me hasn't strengthened your argument on this topic at all, Paul - but rock on, Dood.

Now, questions for you Paul.

1) How would the proposal reduce the popularity and and radio station carriage of conservative talk radio?

2) How would the government be involved in facilitating this so called censorship? What would be the mechanism the government would use under this proposal to dictate what radio programs were on the air and which radio shows were not aired?

lee, i think you meant true instead of false on your first answer above. If you look at what you said, you should have answered true. "diversity of ownership" means either add more stations, which no one is stopping anyone from doing, or remove current owners with liberal ones. The way your ilk proposes doing this is through fines. essentially no liberal would ever be fined, but conservatives would, thus placing a form of economic sanction on conservative stations. This is where the censorship comes in. conservatism isn't exactly going to be censored per se, but it will be put at a huge disadvantage economically. Have you ever thought that maybe liberals are too slow to listen to something for longer than 5 minutes? they need flashy stuff on tv and that is why they dominate that medium.

and you are flat out lying on your point that "They do not want to use the government to reduce the number of conservative radio shows". The government would be monitoring and leveling the "fees" or "fines" and essentially putting an economic sanction on certain kinds of speech. Whatever happened to the first amendment Lee? Don't you think people shgould be able to say ANYTHING?

A cross in a jar of piss is protected by free speech, but Rush Limbaugh (who speaks over the radio.. literally, he speaks Lee!) shouldn't be protected by the first amendment? Leveling fines on certain kinds of speech infringes and in an aspect censors speech plain and simple.

at the very least i give the liberals who came up with this idea some credit for being creative. Even though it is the most sneaky backhanded way to restict speech. Since Lee says it isn't censorship, i say we call it "restriction of speech", or "fines based on level of conservatism".

Typical liberal idea though to propose a tax and restrict free speech and then say it is "opening the door to diversity and allowing new ideas to enter the marketplace".

Lets not forget that talk radio IS the balance. talk radio IS equal time. All the major networks lean left and thats no doubt. Most newspapers. So why can't you libs just leave my radio alone?

Why does the government get involved? It's the FCC's job to recommend policy and enforce radio, WeeWillie, because the public owns the airwaves -- really, no kidding -- look it up.

"How about letting the market decide. And if someone wants to buy a radio station, raise the money. Good point Willie, and that's actually a goegent argument against regulation - but Paul has made the claim that progressives want the government to censor radio stations owners by (Paul's words) "Having the government decide who gets to be on talk radio based on their political belief isn't." So I'd really like to give him a chance to prove that point.

Notice that rather than Paul proving where he's right, he's instead turned this into an attempt to prove me wrong?

"Paul, having the government regulate media is not, in and of itself, censorship."

Jim,
I concede that point, and thats why the dems can say it isn't blatant censorship. BUT, it is indirect censorship. It places a government penalty on certain ideas or speech. The way a radio station slants, or how many hours of conservatives they play vs liberals etc...

Last i checked there wasn't a huge groundswell of liberals wanting their own talk radio stations. Thats why most liberal shows fail. radio just isn't a liberal medium.

1) The progressive are trying to get more liberals and less conservatives on the radio."

It;s a compound question, Paul. It can be partly true andpartly false.

Nes, progressives are trying to get more liberals on the air...

No, the result will not be fewer conservatives on the air.

but now you're ducking the question -- Where is the "Call for government censorship", Paul?

I guess I need to repeat the questions, since you seem to be overlooking them.

1) How would the proposal reduce the popularity and and radio station carriage of conservative talk radio?

2) How would the government be involved in facilitating this so called censorship? What would be the mechanism the government would use under this proposal to dictate what radio programs were on the air and which radio shows were not aired?

I've spent a lot fotime answering your questions, Paul. Why are you replying with little one line snipes instead of continuing the debate?

"OH YEAH: "The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It""

Ending domination does not mean reducing conservative radio shows or censoring radio stations.

Are you really so simple that you can't see that increasing progressive radio show coverage will reduce conservative talk show domination without any censorship or reduction of conservative talk show carriage?

and why aren't you answering my questions, Paul? Giving up so soon? Come on, I can spend another 30 minutes or so on this - let's keep it going here.... please answer my questions so we can proceed with the debate.

Okay, I'll go slowly. The Progressives want to somehow change the ownership statistics of privately-owned radio stations, because it is the ownership that sets the content. As opposed to the Marketplace driving the content.
Would the goverment use Kelo vs New London as a precedent?

Lee, please remember a basic tenet of economics: the law of supply and demand. We have a recent example of this in radio history - Air America Radio, featuring all of your favorite Progressives. There was a burgeoning supply of Progressive content, plenty of cash from advertisers and supporters, and a list of high-quality star talent.

Unfortunately for Air America Radio, there was no demand for their product. No listeners = no Advertisers = no revenue.

Lesson number two for you, Lee: Broadcasting content that there is no market for, and that no-one wants to hear, is not called "programming", it's called "propaganda".

False. They are trying to get more progressives on the radio through more diversity in radio station ownership. The number of conservatives on the radio would not change one bit, as I've explained above.

Okj Lee you're tired of answering Paul's questions, so take a break an answer this one:

If "diversity" means more latinos, blacks, women etc what has been the historical political affiliations of those in the "diverse" groups?

I guess that it is always allowed to stop Conservatives from speaking and always acceptable to promote lefty thought and speech. Natalie Maines blew me out from what was left of my Dixie Chick fan status. When Robin Macy and Laura Lynch were with the band, were fans. When the sisters decided to go "big time" and move to Nashville, that all but blew me out. They lost Robin Macy and I pretty much lost interest. We saw one more concert and that was it. When I heard about the Natalie Maines rant about President Bush, she finished the job. I was done with the Dixie Chicks.

No, Paul, you didn't prove anything. You made a declarative statement that progressives were calling for government censorship of conservative talk radio, and when I called you on it to back it up you put it it on me to prove my claim that they weren't.

1) How would the proposal reduce the popularity and and radio station carriage of conservative talk radio?

2) How would the government be involved in facilitating this so called censorship? What would be the mechanism the government would use under this proposal to dictate what radio programs were on the air and which radio shows were not aired?

1) How would the proposal reduce the popularity and and radio station carriage of conservative talk radio?

Fining Conservatives takes money away from other things, like umm... advertising? Which is one way that stations get listeners. Fines also take away from the money available to pay the on-air talent, producers and the entire staff, thus degrading the quality of a radio station because of the ideas that station airs.

2) How would the government be involved in facilitating this so called censorship? What would be the mechanism the government would use under this proposal to dictate what radio programs were on the air and which radio shows were not aired?

If government isn't going to fine the stations who is? In the tradition of not answering a question with a question, i will say this. Regulating ideas through fines is unconstitutional and the government would have to be the one to levy a fine, as i don't think they contract that out at the current time. And the 2nd part, what would be the mechanism? Obviously the plan calls for beurecrats to monitor the content of each station and make some kind of rating and fine the stations accordingly. obviously since we do not currently institute the fines, there is not a mechanism in place. The center for american progress is merely citing what they think should be done.

You are saying they don't want to pull conservatives off the air. I would prefer that you don't lie to us Lee, that is EXACTLY what this is about. You and i both know that liberals would rejoice the moment Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, or even any local hosts get pulled off the air due to their conservatism costing a station too much in fines. The bottom line Lee is that you might think we are stupid, but you sure are making a poor case to "dazzle us" with your genius...

"If "diversity" means more latinos, blacks, women etc what has been the historical political affiliations of those in the "diverse" groups?"

Liberal. There would be more liberal talk radio shows under this proposal.

Does that mean there would be less conservative talks shows? no. A greater diversity of ownership might mean more progressive talks shows, but it does not mean there would me fewer conservative talk shows.

Why not Lee? Will there be more hours (a 30 hour day maybe) in a day added so these progressives can be added to a stations lineup of shows?

'Liberals' will simply amend the laws of physics (hey, if it doesn't work out like you want; just pass laws!) and decree that the Shannon limit be moved higher, thereby creating more room on the existing spectrum.

2.) Fine conservative stations, change ownerships and get conservatives booted to make way for liberals.

Now nothing is stopping liberals from making their own stations except a lack of listeners, advertisers and everything else it takes to run a radio station let alone a business.

This is where the libs try to pull the wool over peoples eyes to sell this...

Number 1 is unappealing because it keeps failing for liberals.

Number 2 is the only other way to do this.

Placing fines on ideas is essentially what this is. The way Lee is trying to sell this is absolutely misrepresenting what it is all about.

Lee says: "Does that mean there would be less conservative talks shows? no."

Lee means: "We are going to cut conservative shows to make room for liberals"

How else do you add more liberals to already full lineups and not cut some of the existing lineup?

You make your own stations. Obviously that is not what interests them as it has failed miserably in the past, and there would be no reason to place an idealogical fine on conservatism unless you were trying to discourage conservatism.

Once again Lee, put the shovel down. A grave is only supposed to be 6 feet deep...

and decree that the Shannon limit be moved higher, thereby creating more room on the existing spectrum.

I forgot to mention. Even if you increase the spectrum, your standard radio doesn't tune to the higher and lower frequencies, so the only way to listen to the new stations outside the standard spectrum is to buy a new radio.(HDRadio anyone?)

At 7:49 I said I had 30 minutes for you to snwer my questions, so Ive hung out here until 8:29 to see if you would, and you haven;t.

No surprise.

"Why not Lee? Will there be more hours (a 30 hour day maybe) in a day added so these progressives can be added to a stations lineup of shows?"

Here's the quote again.

Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest."

"Along with other ideas, the report recommends that national radio ownership not be allowed to exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations, and local ownership should not exceed more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market."

No one is talking about radio stations being told to take Rush off the air and put someone else on instead. What's proposed is that radio station ownership would be affected, but there is no proposal from what I've seen that would try to regulate what a radio station airs or doesn't air. No one is suggesting that the government tells radio stations to take off Rush and put Air America on instead - that is pure tin-hat wingnuttery.

Paul says:

"OH.. I see the problem... You don't understand how radio works.

Unlike the economy, the stock market and taxation, air time is a zero sum game. You can't make more radio stations and you can't make more than 24 hours in a day.

If you want to put more libs on the air and leave the conservatives alone, you have to put more time in the day or start building radio stations.

Not a single time did this article mention building liberals their own stations.

In other words, unless you have a time machine, you're dead freaking wrong."

The article, which I've quoted repeatedly, states that the playing field would be leveled by increasing diversity of radio station ownership.

I've asked you repeatedly to show where the proposal calls for regulating the broadcast day, and dictating what radio shows can air and which ones can't.

You failed in that regard on the other post, and you failed again here. You declare it so - and you say they will, but you've failed to show us where it says that in the article or in that report, Paul.

You just keep saying that's what they want to do because that's what you want to believe. You haven't shown where that is in the proposal - you've just put on your tin-foil hat - read the stars and the minds of those involved -- and declared what it is that PAUL says they want to do.

My 30 minutes are up, you didn't answer my questions after I spent a considerable amount of time addressing yours, and so I'm outta here.

At 7:49 I said I had 30 minutes for you to snwer my questions, so Ive hung out here until 8:29 to see if you would, and you haven;t.

No surprise.

"Why not Lee? Will there be more hours (a 30 hour day maybe) in a day added so these progressives can be added to a stations lineup of shows?"

Here's the quote again.

Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest."

"Along with other ideas, the report recommends that national radio ownership not be allowed to exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations, and local ownership should not exceed more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market."

No one is talking about radio stations being told to take Rush off the air and put someone else on instead. What's proposed is that radio station ownership would be affected, but there is no proposal from what I've seen that would try to regulate what a radio station airs or doesn't air. No one is suggesting that the government tells radio stations to take off Rush and put Air America on instead - that is pure tin-hat wingnuttery.

Paul says:

"OH.. I see the problem... You don't understand how radio works.

Unlike the economy, the stock market and taxation, air time is a zero sum game. You can't make more radio stations and you can't make more than 24 hours in a day.

If you want to put more libs on the air and leave the conservatives alone, you have to put more time in the day or start building radio stations.

Not a single time did this article mention building liberals their own stations.

In other words, unless you have a time machine, you're dead freaking wrong."

The article, which I've quoted repeatedly, states that the playing field would be leveled by increasing diversity of radio station ownership.

I've asked you repeatedly to show where the proposal calls for regulating the broadcast day, and dictating what radio shows can air and which ones can't.

You failed in that regard on the other post, and you failed again here. You declare it so - and you say they will, but you've failed to show us where it says that in the article or in that report, Paul.

You just keep saying that's what they want to do because that's what you want to believe. You haven't shown where that is in the proposal - you've just put on your tin-foil hat - read the stars and the minds of those involved -- and declared what it is that PAUL says they want to do.

My 30 minutes are up, you didn't answer my questions after I spent a considerable amount of time addressing yours, and so I'm outta here.

Any change in the makeup of airwaves broadcasts, if done so by governmental decree, is censorship. The authors of the bill of rights were very careful with their wording: "congress shall make no law....."

Congress should make no law in the free exercise of speach whether it is to promote balance or victim's rights, or apple pie.

"The article, which I've quoted repeatedly, states that the playing field would be leveled by increasing diversity of radio station ownership.

How will that make more broadcast hours in the day?

Oh, you're full of crap. I get it."

You don't need to make more hours in the broadcast day, Paul. No one suggesting that Rush be taken off so that progressives can be put on that station.

The proposal talks about diversity of station ownership, and increasing the number of stations that are minority and woman owned, not regulation of the broadcast day.

You haven't shown that statement to be incorrect, you just keep parroting the answers of others now, and their "30 hours" argument is specious.

I realize that these are big words for you, but I can't dumb this argument down any further so you can understand that, Paul. Sorry. If you refuse to understand words written in english, refuse to answer the questions I posed after I answered yours, and are now just repeating the same mindless babble over and over again there's no point in this.

I've leave you with your cadre of immature putzes - see you on the comment thread of your next post. Next time give some more thought into what you write... this was pathetic. This place has really gone downhill.

Lee, like so many of his ilk, doesn't grasp certain fundamental concepts -- such as that of finite resources. There are only so many radio stations, so many hours in a day. Right now those are dominated by conservative hosts. Since radio time is pretty much a zero-sum game, increasing the number of liberals on the air can only come about through a reduction of conservatives on the air.

it's so sad, when people can't simply get their way and find they have to try to get the government to give it to them...

Lee you fukcing idiot. It won't matter how "diverse" radio station owners are or how much airtime progressive/socialist/communist/liberals get because NO ONE WILL LISTEN TO THEM.

Air America had to PAY XM to broadcast their bullshit whining everyday. They went belly up.

Get over it. You fucking lib/commies are not happy with complete control of most news rags and network television.

You're an idiot and you can't help it, but you can't bring everyone down to share your misery as a life loser, so go back to your street corner and pan handle some more. You'll find some other lib/commies who will donate from their trust funds to pay for your internet access.

Ward, just like you sucking along here at Wizbang, because nothing you could produce would stand on its own, you must draw on the ability of others to support your twisted message. Why they gave you a platform I will never know. If you want a more diversified ownership of radio stations, buy them. If you try to enforce what this legislation intends on radio, then it must apply to other forms of media. A count must be taken to see if there are more lying leftie liberal blogs than the purveyers of truth from the right. A recent count shows 9 our of 10 journalist donate to the Dems, apply that law there as well. CNN, instead of hiding Glen Beck on HNN would have to place him oposite of Matthews or the real idiot, and lees mentor, Olbermann. Lee, take a class in marketing. Products than don't sell don't find a place in the market.

Lee doesn't rate headline billing or the effort of a response. He is a deluded nut-case ideologue. He is and will continue be blinded to any semblance of truth by said ideology. It is a total waste of time and reminds me of the old saying about wallowing in the mud with a pig - and the pig liking it.

All the more reason to force the product on the consumer. Air America didn't make it because nobody would listen to it - even in cities you'd think there would be a good market for it - so for the good of the country it must be subsidized and expanded?

You know, I think the worst thing that could happen to the 'progressive' movement is massive media exposure. As long as mainstream America doesn't realize just how wonderful the progressives are, they'll be tolerated. When it really becomes clear just what the progressives are all about, what their vision is, what they're willing to inflict on everyone else in the name of 'fairness' - their support will drop even further. In all honesty, their low profile is an actual benefit at this point. They'd do well not to raise it.

You cannot force someone to listen to programming they normally would avoid. I won't listen to rap - should I be forced to? I won't listen to the local rap stations - is that an indication of good taste, or overt racism?

They're after visibility. Newspaper readership is declining, and there's too many established magazines to make a long-term splash there. TV? Too easy to change the channel.

Most radio listeners keep it on as background noise while driving, and rarely change the channel once they find a station they like. The idea is to get control of those stations, and you'll have the ears locked in.

But they forget that in the end the consumer decides what they want to listen to. Say you've got two competing talk stations - WAAA and WBUY. Each does twelve hours of conservative talk, twelve hours of 'progressive'. When one has conservative, the other has progressive. In any given market - which genre would you expect (based on Air America's flameout) to have the listeners?

Liberal talk seems to be a non-starter. I'm not sure what they expect from this 'fairness doctrine' crap - you're going to have a hard time finding stations that'll play stuff that people actively seem to avoid.

The good news is that if some form of Fairness Doctrine 2.0 gets passed out of the Congress, Bush will veto it.

Even before that, I'm not sure it can get out of Congress. Either way, passed or not, the GOP Caucus better make it as bloody and as noisy as the illegal amnesty debate is.

Make every supporter of censorship put their name down as in favor of it. What they should do, is for every action the demos want to take against talk radio, then have an amendment that applies it to network and cable television.

That would be sweet. Katie Cupcake and Rush Limbaugh on the same set. Twenty two minutes every night. Rush gets 1/2 of the time. Of course, that would pull CBS's and Cupcakes ratings right out of the toilet.

The biggest concern is in 2009 if the demos retain the Congress and gain the WH. In that case, there will be Fairness Doctrine 2.0 will leave a scorch mark it will be out of the Congress and to the WH so fast.

If the big three auto makers controlled the vast majority of ALL car dealerships in the country, and Hondas, Toyotas, etc were only available at small local independent places unable to compete with the exclusionary tactics of the big boys, what would the consumer pattern be? What if they were so marginalized and far apart they were invisible to much of the public? What would the foreign share of the market be, even if they provided a product that, if presented equally, would be one preferred by consumers? Hypothetical? Apples and oranges? The big difference seems to be that cars aren't political, while talk radio is.

The concept that the airwaves belong to the public, not solely to corporate interests with the biggest bank accounts and, increasingly, political agendas has been eroded to the point where very few people control the bulk of the information flow to the public. That ain't right. Progressive radio's message, whatever you may think of it, should exist on the same main drag, right next to the competition. The current monopoly on ownership of perhaps the most integral part of our free system makes sure that doesn't happen. In my town the 50K AM station (owned by Clear Channel) blares its purely "conservative" message 24/7 to the masses including, after dark, all the way to Tierra del Fuego. The progressive station is heard within the city confines on a good day, weather permitting, and disappears after dark. If you can't hear it, you can't listen to it.

It's ironic that so many Great Americans on this site so vociferously and violently argue against the thing that is absolutely critical to democracy, a free flow of information to the entire populace. The government broke up monopolies and trusts in the past, some which were less important to our survival. They should do it again in this case. What possible harm could come from limiting how much of the media market one company or individual can control? Wait a minute, that's right; a few people might make a few million or billion less. Now that would REALLY be un-American!

Lee, you've struck a nerve. If this weren't just one of thousands of internet blogs, you'd probably look out your window and see a nondescript, late model sedan parked several houses down, the two shadowy figures inside trying to look inconspicuous. The topic of a post all by yourself! Hats off!

If the big three auto makers controlled the vast majority of ALL car dealerships in the country, and Hondas, Toyotas, etc were only available at small local independent places unable to compete with the exclusionary tactics of the big boys, what would the consumer pattern be?

JohnThe biggest concern is in 2009 if the demos retain the Congress and gain the WH. In that case, there will be Fairness Doctrine 2.0 will leave a scorch mark it will be out of the Congress and to the WH so fast

I fully expect that to happen; however, conservative talk is a commodity that has a known value. It will be heard somewhere, and whoever airs it will reap substantial profits.
As mentioned on the other thread, it's the wack o mole theory in action. Whatever product or service demands a premium will never disappear.

So Lee does state that there is a possibility/probability that "progressive/commie" type programming that are available would go up, but says that no conservative shows would be canceled. He seems to think that there are about 3 or 4 conservative programs.

There are hundreds of programs, some local, some national. If even one gets dropped, not because of market demand, but due to government interference (even if indirect by strongly encouraging "diverse" owners), it would (using the words of Lee discussing the Dixie Chix), be a form of censorship

Taking Conservative owned stations and giving them to liberals(for the sake of diversity) is not censorship. HUH???? Are you freaking kidding me Lee? what in heavens name do you think the Liberal owner is going to do?

1) If they are smart they'll keep the same programming and make money but if they do that then they'll get fined for not having more liberal content.

2) Change the format to a more liberal slant, In which case genius the same result is you take conservatives off the air!

Oh my gawd, Lee. You were dumb enough to express an inane position in the first place, but you've further dropped about 40 IQ points that you couldn't afford to lose in defending the indefensible. Critical thought is something you shouldn't think about.

Everyone is assuming that that all radio station owners want to make money. That may not be the case. Someone like Soros or Gates or O'Donnell might buy a radio station that is basically forced to go on sale, then play speeches by Lenin/Stalin/Mao all day long, and not care whether they make money. They may even consider it a form of martyrdom -- losing money for the cause.

Also, please remember that if the product is good, there is always a market. groucho used the big three auto (never mind that Toyota is now #1), but we might have thought that the auto market 10 years ago was saturated -- no way a new player has room to come in. Well Kia did, and I believe it is currently the fastest growing brand. Pizza places, TV brands (like Vizio with the new HDTVs -- 10 years ago it was all Panasonic/Sony/Toshiba/Zenith et al), soft drinks (Jones soda when Coke/Pepsi was dominant) -- all can get in the game if they produce a product that people will like. That's what the lefties need to concentrate on -- coming up with better ideas -- but that's of course hard work. It's easier to force radio time away from the conservatives.

And Lee, who at least has tried to think (from having known him here for months), he needs to criticize this movement by the Left. Not argue details to why it is not censorship. It is patently unfair and underhanded.

The Lefties here benefit from freedom of speech. They exercise that loudly. They must (in their conscience even if they don't admit it) disapprove of DKos and DU shutting out conservative comments. They can and should be critical of this underhanded way to have a form of censorship of conservative radio, without betraying their ideology.

I'm confident of my ideology. If we tried to do this if the situation were reversed, I would oppose. We can be successful without such shameful and underhanded tactics.

1) How would the proposal reduce the popularity and and radio station carriage of conservative talk radio?

Lee see page 10. "In terms of local ownership, no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market, or
specifically, more than:
- Four commercial stations in large markets (a radio market with 45 or more commercial radio stations).
- Three stations in mid-markets (between 30 and 44 total commercial radio stations).
- Two stations in smaller markets (between 15 and 29 total commercial radio stations).
- One station in the smallest markets (14 or fewer total commercial radio stations).

The report doesn't talk about adding new progressive stations, it is talking about forcing EXISTING stations to change ownership. So if Clear Channel owns 2 stations in a market with only 8 stations, Clear Channel will be forced by the government to sell one of those stations.

That is how the proposal reduces Conservative radio station carriage, by forcing them to sell off stations.

2) How would the government be involved in facilitating this so called censorship? What would be the mechanism the government would use under this proposal to dictate what radio programs were on the air and which radio shows were not aired?

Lee, see page 11 of the report. "A fee based on a sliding scale (1 percent for small markets, 5 percent for the largest markets) would be distributed directly to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting with clear mandates to support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner."

While the report doesn't come right out and say we plan on forcing radio stations to drop Limbaugh, what it is saying is that radio stations will be required to broadcast a balanced opinion. So if a radio station broadcasts 24 hrs of Conservative radio or even Progressive radio, they will be required to provide a balanced opinion. How that balance is achieved isn't specified.

Since a 24 hr station can't add a 25th hour, some part of it's line up must be removed to make room for the balance.

Now the radio station is being forced by the government to modify it's content. It may not be Limbaugh who gets cut, but it will be somebody else. Even if by balance they don't mean a 50/50 split, the government is dictating to the radio station the content that must be on the air.

A liberal station is like a tree in the forest. If said tree falls and no one is around, does it make a noise? If said station is on the air and no one listens, is it really there? Oh and by the way wardie, you were "out" of here before you arrived. snicker snort (is Wizbang blue really alive if it never moves?)

I think we've missed one subtle little secret that Lee isn't confessing, in regards to ownership.

To wit: market forces currently dictate radio station ownership and programming trends. Small time operators continue selling out to the likes of Clear Channel and other large operators because - SURPRISE - the small stations cannot remain profitable with their existing offerings, and the requirement to actually pay local talent for programming.

Lee, get a frickin' clue. There's a REASON why local stations sell out to regional operators like Clear Channel, AND there's another reason why regional operators are PROFITABLE.

You know, like, people might actually TUNE IN AND LISTEN to the programming offered by Clear Channel, and to shows hosted by Rush...?

Paul, what Lee is proposing is a return (in radio) to the way banks were forced to operate after the Great Depression (I think it was the Glass Stegall Hartman act, 1934, but feel free to Google and correct me) where bank ownership was limited to local counties.

As a result, there were far too many banking companies in existence to be profitable, until those laws were relaxed in the late 1980's. Once that happened, market forces caused local banks to get snapped up by larger operators like crazy.

I heard someone on a local show today make this point about the "public interest" of radio and the argument this liberal study makes. She basically equated this study to "making sure a mcdonalds, burger king, taco bell, arbys and every single other solitary fast food restaurant were just as close to a highway exit as each other and none any further in order to server the public interest because they are all connected via public roads".

I thought her point was brilliant and that illustrates the idiocy of the libs. This whole thing is predicated on a "public interest" by the libs. There is no fairness in business, and government cannot, and should not attempt to provide any semblance of fairness. Radio is a business like any other. Except that it has to abide by certain decency guidelines. Cable news is more prominent than radio yet has no such guidelines. Not like the FCC...

This proposal is like saying Steve's hardware cannot make 5% more profit over Joe's hardware. If Steve's does, the government gets a percentage of Steve's money in order to make up for the inherit unfairness. It would be "leveling the playing field" since everything is tilted in Steve's favor already...

No mention about how Steve's has the consumer base, and that Steve's has good service, while Joe's treats his customers like crap since there is a standard in place that keeps Steve's in check. It's only fair right???

They must (in their conscience even if they don't admit it) disapprove of DKos and DU shutting out conservative comments.

No, I don't think they do. Their ideology calls for a massive certainty, and does not allow for the possibility of dissent. Dissent must NOT be allowed to exist, and although they can 'tolerate' it elsewhere, on their own sites they know how to deal with it. It's either driven off or disappeared - and which of the two happens depends on how much of a threat to the ideology it appears to be.

But please note, it's not seen as 'censorship'. Instead, just think of it as purifying the pool they swim in.. an ideological 'cleansing'. Surely there's nothing wrong with like-minded individuals refusing to allow space for contrary, undeniably wrong ideas, is there?

It doesn't have to be profitable. In fact, it may even be preferable TO have stations condemned to liberal radio fail... because then the 'dissent' of conservative programming would have to be cut back to compensate.

So instead of political talk radio - the station might switch to sports programming. Or cooking. Or gardening or DIY hints. As long as it gets the conservative programming off the air, it doesn't matter.

personally the only other talk radio station i listen to is http://www.wkrk.com for the "Shock Jocks" as they are inaccurately referred to, but the locals tend to be funny at times. Are the same fines going to be imposed on talk radio that isn't classified as political?? wkrk hosts make political jokes. should they be subject to this??

I haven't been following this argument that closely, but let me point out the word from the statement that everyone seems to be ignoring...

who fail to abide by enforceable
public interest obligations

"Enforceable". That means they are not calling for anything illegal, unconstitutional, or... well... unenforceable. I wonder if those on the right are going to claim that the government has no "enforceable" means at its disposal to influence public policy. If not, then stop whining about it.

The FCC, as always. The Communications Act of 1934 laid out the justification for selling (or leasing) the airwaves to private parties as long as they used them in the public interest. The FCC has always been loathe to translate this into restricting content (with some exceptions), and from 1934 traditionally focused any regulation on preventing media consolidation, and then in the 80s regulation turned the opposite way and has been relaxing restrictions ever since. Consolidation has proceeded apace (9 companies own about 90% of the media market).

Free Press (who performed this radio analysis with The Center for American Progress) and others have long advocated that the FCC tighten restrictions to ensure greater local media production and focus. This is not restricted to radio and much of their advocacy does not deal with political communication, but things like saving spectrum in an upcoming auction for open public wireless.

Think Progress, we can be sure, wants to get rid of conservative radio by whatever available means.

They're wrong, on multiple levels. They won't succeed for one; there won't be media monopolies anytime soon thanks to new media, plus it's censorship. I personally don't care about radio, I'm more concerned ownership of other spectrum.

Took me a while to read all the silliness here and watch the constant smackdowns of Lee's logic. But I want to say something anyway. Not that Lee will read it, it seems he is being deliberately obtuse and hasn't won many converts as a result so he's taken his chips and gone home or he's furiously composing a Wizbangblue post which will be laced with name calling and vitriol.

Anyway ....

Lee, you say:

"Yes, they are calling for more diversity in ownership and, they presume, more women and minority owners of radio stations will result inan increase in progressive radio carriage and a commensurate (sorry to use the big words here guys) decrease in hate-talk conservative radio domination as a result."

Then you say:

"No, the result will not be fewer conservatives on the air."

All your snidery aside, Lee, which is it? They're looking for an intended result, but they're not?

That right there tells you all you need to know. They don't like it and they're seeking to have government intervene for the sake of "diversity", regardless of the political leaning of any given area in the entire country. Lee and everyone else who thinks this is a great idea won't have a problem when Portland, Oregon's liberal-dominated talk radio is forced to comply, right? No matter that Portland's citizenry is, by a large margin, comprised of liberals. By their standard, they're not serving the public's "listening needs", right?

Liberals on this thread continue to pine away for the halcyon days of radio as if that time and type of regulatory environment would change anything. It won't though.

If Citadel, Cumulus and Clear Chanel were busted up and the stations were owned by the many owners that once owned them what is it that would change the profit motive of the previous owners? Nothing. They would broadcast whatever sold the most ads, just as the consolidators do now.

The other obvious elephant in the room is that, setting aside Lee's sophism, that his proposal would backfire.

I can guarantee you that if the fairness doctrine were implemented that conservative radio would go satellite and that conservatives would demand that every TV station (most all of which air biased left news and other content) be forced to abide by the fairness doctrine as well.

So after Lee's totalitarian/fascist efforts were accomplished conservatives would still have talk radio via satellite and would suddenly have two television networks they didn't have previously and thousands of local television stations.

Also, Lee misses that "conservative" may either be "libertarian", "social conservative", or "fiscal conservative". Clear Channel, et. al. are likely owned by fiscal conservatives. Why does it follow that ownership of stations would be turned over to liberals or progressives (aka communists) in the name of diversity? Would it not be a boon to "diversity" to turn ownership over to social conservatives or libertarians?